Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 202

I mean you don't want me to read this or convince me of anything anyways right?

On February 04 2020 22:31 Loco wrote: ^ Three things in passing: (1) Baal is a liberal. Libertarianism is a form of liberalism (laissez-faire liberalism or ultra-liberalism). There are a number of different liberal ideologies. Using the word 'liberal' just to mean people who you think are on the left on the insane US spectrum is completely meaningless and ahistorical. He was also never called a Nazi on here, he was only called out for sharing/posting the content and talking points of actual, out-in-the-open fascists and their social media propagandists. Also, Baal believes that capitalism is the only viable form of socially organizing an economy, so he believes that no matter how bad it gets, it has to be preserved and reformed, which means that when push comes to shove he would sooner side with fascists who want to preserve capitalism than with the left who want to overcome it. (And part of why he would ally with the fascists is because he doesn't believe the left actually wants to do that, they just want more for themselves, just like the fascists, but the fascists are less dangerous in his mind.)

i'm struggling to figure out why you posted this. i said baal thinks liberals do retarded things. it does not matter what baal is. he could be a flying purple people eater.
this is so tangential to the point i can't help but think you missed it due to the fact that you can't read, only write
okay baal is a liberal who would side with fascists but we still haven't given enough of a fuck to actually comb through and find a screenshot of you calling him a nazi explicitly. congratulations. who cares?

>he was called out
spoken like a 12 year old tumblr girl
go outside dude

also, this doesn't make sense because the US spectrum isn't insane, it's famously moderate, so it's a much broader set to say liberal from that perspective

but okay if it makes you feel better. baal thinks libtards do stupid things. that doesn't make him a fascist. stop doing that, unless your goal is to set a guinness world record for most words written to convince 0 people of anything.

On February 04 2020 22:31 Loco wrote: (2) You're misusing the sentence "I think you protest too much." You use that line when you believe there is good reason to believe that someone is opposing something that they are themselves guilty of, because their strong opposition is meant to drive suspicions away from them. There is no reason to believe that Drone is into sexual assault, so you are misusing it. It's not far from the concept of projection.

that was exactly the point, Einstein. nail on the head. i'm saying people who go OH RICH FAMOUS MAN LIKES TO FUCK HOT WOMAN MUST BE RAPIST are projecting their own crimes. not uncommon on the left. Drone said there's something wrong with me so I called him a rapist. george carlin as we know, do all the coke and stick it in a bunch of girls' asses, then have a daughter and suddenly become a bleeding heart weirdo because of deep-seated guilt

and by calling you Einstein I'm not misusing the good name of the late Albert, implying you're a genius. I'm saying you're Bob Einstein because you post like a comedian and have the brain of a dead person. throw your computer into a swimming pool.

"Loco you're an idiot"
"actually i'm rly erudite and read x y and z books about epistemological minutiae so you're misusing that word"
lol
are you any good at fortune telling? because i want you to read my facepalms

On February 04 2020 22:31 Loco wrote: (3) Which brings me to your projection. The "people are good or bad" dichotomy is the right-wing view of the world. It has nothing to do with leftism. Leftists believe that the structures and processes that people are embedded in shape who they are, and therefore their behaviors (especially as they are unconscious of them). They don't believe in simplistic dichotomies and fixed natures or "essences". Leftists will tell you things like "capitalist relations make people more competitive and selfish" or "patriarchy makes the men who are unconscious of it think that sexual assault is laudable." Right-wingers on the other hand have a more fixed view of human behavior outside of the influence of anything structural. They have a strong set of in-group, out-group beliefs. Like, "this person is good because they're white and rich and they provide for their family, and this person is bad because they come from a shithole country and they're taking our jobs." Or, "these gays are ruining the sacred institution of marriage." This is pretty simple stuff that you should know about if you have any real interest in politics beyond the mass media spectacle.

if i wanted to read about projection i'd go to a seminar on cinema technology

so the intellectual framework of liberalism is "capitalist relations make people more competitive and selfish" and the intellectual framework of conservatism is "THESE GAYS!"
is that your point? thanks for that clearly mature and unbiased perspective. yeah "THESE GAYS!" i think that's straight from the oeuvre of william f buckley

yeah leftists, they've got nothing against white people or jews or anything.

On February 04 2020 22:31 Loco wrote: Oh and I almost forgot... here's another example of the simplistic and thoughtless in-group out-group right-wing worldview: burning dogs and cats alive for pleasure is morally acceptable, because human supremacy. Ring a bell? This is the argument that you made openly just a couple months ago, Santafairy. Yet here you are, defending yourself once again as the oppressor who is out in the open, this time on the subject of sexual assault (it's just a natural part of masculinity, bro!) claiming to only be casually disagreeing about minor things, and giving us moral lessons about how we should be more kind and considerate when we're talking about people who promote violent and oppressive acts based on no logic other than that of personal entitlement and essentialist "that's just how life is" pseudo-philosophy.

yeah Loco I'm really, sincerely in favor of burning cats and dogs alive. it wasn't just something i said to see if you'd realize what a brazen asinine and childish question that is to ask someone and to get you to shut the fuck up if you couldn't figure out why nobody wants to bother being spoken to like that
so yeah I'm 100% in favor of sexual assault also. okay will you not post another tedious essay at me "in passing" please?

personality like a ball point pen that explodes in your shirt. keep trying to convince the internet of the revolution while talking to everyone like subhumans. the only party you'll get invited to is the workers' revolutionary socialist party.

On February 04 2020 22:31 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + Imagine latching on to something like that Imagine spending your time defending tyrants who only care about their image and their bank account. Somehow though you still manage to get reactions on here by people who should know better. It's quite sad.

try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who lives a few hundred km from north korea and some armchair asshole whose only tenured philosophy position is on a poker website is telling you the leader of the free world and greatest country in history is a tyrant

i posted another 50 pages about drumpf. the evil is defeated! i'm such a good person. also baal is a fascist

On February 05 2020 11:11 LemOn[5thF] wrote: So hard to read Loco really, you take this combative stance don't ask any questions I'm sorry but won't waste my time

No, he s actually pointing out things that require basic knowledge and common sense, I'd be embarrassed by myself in your position rather than continuing with the absolute stupidity

I don't think you understand how retarded you sound when you say "yeah well it doesnt matter that he is a proud sexual abuser and racist on occassions what does this have to do with politics?"

Lemon seems to like to revert to tone policing when he is unwilling to accept that someone else rightly pointed out the wrongness of one of his claims. It's a pretty cowardly strategy and certainly has nothing to do with growing from debates with others, which he pretends to care about the most. Also typical of centrists in my experience; since they don't have a coherent worldview, it's easy to revert to ad hominem attacks and evasion when they're pushed around a little bit.

this is gold

On February 05 2020 21:43 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On February 05 2020 11:11 LemOn[5thF] wrote: So hard to read Loco really, you take this combative stance don't ask any questions I'm sorry but won't waste my time No, he s actually pointing out things that require basic knowledge and common sense, I'd be embarrassed by myself in your position rather than continuing with the absolute stupidity I don't think you understand how retarded you sound when you say "yeah well it doesnt matter that he is a proud sexual abuser and racist on occassions what does this have to do with politics?"

I'm just saying that policy stances are way more important
Than trying to sound like a big shot in front of Billy Bush behind closed doors
You would disagree with that?

Do you actually agree with The Dems and media focusing on those things
And overshadowing actual plans he had for policies ?

Would you call Bill Clinton a bad president that shouldn't have ever been in office? Given that unlike trump he's actually a proven predator?

And I'm not aware why is he a racist
- The wall, calling illegal mexican immigrants "rapists", the muslim travel ban seem like face-up strategies to give give him media attention
He's a manipulative narcissist that knows how to work the media - I mean prove me wrong, how has he been consistently racist before he was president?

What are his racist policies and examples that he wasn't using as a strategy for attention ?

This is the argument you are making: some serial killers aren't really killers because what they wanted above all was to draw attention to themselves and become famous. Since killing was only instrumental to their true, intrinsic desire, they are not killers.

This is unsound reasoning, do you see why? I'm sure you do. You wouldn't argue that the word "killer" doesn't apply to someone who killed people just because their main motive for killing was to become famous. The problem is that you are unwilling to consider that racism is not merely a belief, but also something that someone does. Whether or not it is strategic is irrelevant because it isn't purely strategic and inconsequential. The charge of racism comes from the undeniable fact that there are consequences that negatively affect those who are being antagonized and discriminated against on a racial basis.

It is a lot more useful to consider racism as broader than merely a personal belief in the superiority of one's own race/ethnicity detached from any sort of action. If you took your line of thinking to its logical extreme, then you would regress to solipsism and claim that no one can ever be proven to be racist, because no one can read other people's minds: a person who "acts racist" might not be racist at all for all we know, they could just be playing a role and fooling us. This, of course, would still be true regardless of how many people they have oppressed or killed. Am I wrong? If I am wrong, please explain.

It seems like if this is how you define racism, then there is no logical reason why you couldn't defend that "we can never know if someone is truly racist based on their actions," rendering any conversation on the subject of racism pointless. In fact, you could take it further and argue that they might not even exist as a person in the objective world, they could just be a figment of your imagination. It's impossible to prove 100% that solipsism isn't true, but there are good reasons why pretty much no academic philosophers are solipsists, just as there are good reasons why we consider racism to be related to one's actions.

You have good points there
But do let's talk about actions yeah when you mention the murder example (which I agree with)?

What racist policies has Trump actually enacted though in practice?

Border security is a legitimate issue that everyone was dealing with e.g. Obama administration built the holding cages and I don't think you'd call him racist
The Travel bans + recent added residency visa bans have been on selec countries, not on Muslims as a whole a lot of countries with muslim population are allowed. I mean it's an overkill unfair policy when it comes to security but doesn't seem inherently racist?

He just gave a medal to Rush Limbaugh I mean yeah I guess he indirectly validated a guy that has made racist statements
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rus...h-racist-quotes/?collection-id=234520
But it's not a racist policy per say

And I can't think of anything else in terms of actual racist policies his administration put in place?

I'd like to thank Baal's existence for causing Loco to inadvertently admit liberals can be fascists

On February 06 2020 01:01 LemOn[5thF] wrote: And I'm not aware why is he a racist - The wall, calling illegal mexican immigrants "rapists", the muslim travel ban seem like face-up strategies to give give him media attention He's a manipulative narcissist that knows how to work the media - I mean prove me wrong, how has he been consistently racist before he was president? What are his racist policies and examples that he wasn't using as a strategy for attention ?

https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...-fbi-files-discrimination-case-235067

On February 06 2020 15:22 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On February 06 2020 01:01 LemOn[5thF] wrote: And I'm not aware why is he a racist - The wall, calling illegal mexican immigrants "rapists", the muslim travel ban seem like face-up strategies to give give him media attention He's a manipulative narcissist that knows how to work the media - I mean prove me wrong, how has he been consistently racist before he was president? What are his racist policies and examples that he wasn't using as a strategy for attention ? https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...-fbi-files-discrimination-case-235067

Proves that they weren't admitting people on welfare and had some racist managers, hardly damning for trump?

Why isn't sexual assault an acceptable form of corrective violence for the revolution?

On February 06 2020 10:27 LemOn[5thF] wrote: The Travel bans + recent added residency visa bans have been on selec countries, not on Muslims as a whole a lot of countries with muslim population are allowed. I mean it's an overkill unfair policy when it comes to security but doesn't

Dude what the fuck are you talking about, they are still shaking Saudi dick. The bans were under the pretense that those countries could pontetially import violent people while Saudi Arabia is the sole creator of most terrorists in the world including every single one of the 9/11 hijackers

holy fucking hell, you must be a Ben Shapiro fan as well arent you

And obviously nobody would do a travel ban due to racism, they've done it for pure geopolitical reasons, but the mere fact you even try to argue on that note is so ridiculous it blows my mind

On February 05 2020 23:16 Loco wrote: Lemon seems to like to revert to tone policing when he is unwilling to accept that someone else rightly pointed out the wrongness of one of his claims. It's a pretty cowardly strategy and certainly has nothing to do with growing from debates with others, which he pretends to care about the most. Also typical of centrists in my experience; since they don't have a coherent worldview, it's easy to revert to ad hominem attacks and evasion when they're pushed around a little bit.

I agree Lemon is a huge incoherent centrist coward who always uses ad hominem attacks

On February 06 2020 23:22 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On February 06 2020 10:27 LemOn[5thF] wrote: The Travel bans + recent added residency visa bans have been on selec countries, not on Muslims as a whole a lot of countries with muslim population are allowed. I mean it's an overkill unfair policy when it comes to security but doesn't Dude what the fuck are you talking about, they are still shaking Saudi dick. The bans were under the pretense that those countries could pontetially import violent people while Saudi Arabia is the sole creator of most terrorists in the world including every single one of the 9/11 hijackers holy fucking hell, you must be a Ben Shapiro fan as well arent you And obviously nobody would do a travel ban due to racism, they've done it for pure geopolitical reasons, but the mere fact you even try to argue on that note is so ridiculous it blows my mind

Not sure why you're getting all heated up when you're saying exactly the same thing as I am lol
EDIT: It's okay to be angry, anger is fun I practice it a lot

I agree with you there - the selective bans have nothing to do with racism and everything to do with backroom politics, manipulating his base and profiteering.

Question was what racist policies he has enacted, this ain't one of them, and you seem to agree with me!

The guys I'm a fan of are Colbert, John Oliver, Colbert, Mark Dice and Trevor Noah

And I did watch some Shapiro and Crowder

On February 07 2020 07:24 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On February 05 2020 23:16 Loco wrote: Lemon seems to like to revert to tone policing when he is unwilling to accept that someone else rightly pointed out the wrongness of one of his claims. It's a pretty cowardly strategy and certainly has nothing to do with growing from debates with others, which he pretends to care about the most. Also typical of centrists in my experience; since they don't have a coherent worldview, it's easy to revert to ad hominem attacks and evasion when they're pushed around a little bit. I agree Lemon is a huge incoherent centrist coward who always uses ad hominem attacks

I just try not to see the world as black and white, is that such a bad thing?

You get your politics from conspiracy theorists and late night show type shills? Well that explains a lot